convoy, big or small?

convoy, big or small? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

jay102 -> convoy, big or small? (1/22/2014 5:49:45 PM)
I guess there are two different styles of convoy composition as Allies. Big convy like 100 ships, well escorted by major combat ships. They need time to gather and organise, less threatened by enemy subs and surface raiders, but a juicy target for KB. Small convoy, 1-20 ships, no need to gather and can depart freely. They are easy target for enemy subs and surface raiders but it's not lethal to lose some of them. Personally I like big ones, as millions of small TF scattered on map make me feel out of control. What's your opinion?

Mundy -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/22/2014 6:25:42 PM)
Unless you splinter the convoy up near the destinations, you should take into account the ability of the port to anchor them all. Otherwise it's extra time to (un)load them all. Ed-

kaleun -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/22/2014 6:32:32 PM)
I do both. Large convoys to bring supplies to large places like Pearl, Sidney, Melbourne and, later in the war Perth and others. Smaller convoys with smaller ships to take the same to smaller places and, finally, even smaller, amphibious loads to take stuff to ports size <3

Schanilec -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/22/2014 7:20:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jay102 I guess there are two different styles of convoy composition as Allies. Big convy like 100 ships, well escorted by major combat ships. They need time to gather and organise, less threatened by enemy subs and surface raiders, but a juicy target for KB. Small convoy, 1-20 ships, no need to gather and can depart freely. They are easy target for enemy subs and surface raiders but it's not lethal to lose some of them. Personally I like big ones, as millions of small TF scattered on map make me feel out of control. What's your opinion? And just what is wrong with being out of control?[:)]

dr.hal -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/22/2014 7:32:13 PM)
I think large slow convoys (speed 12kts or 3 hexes a pulse) is the way to go with an escort. Faster convoys would be smaller and with appropriate escort but speed being a big defense factor (4 or 5 hexes a pulse). Warships can't keep up with the normal speed of large ocean liners so they might run independently.

catwhoorg -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/22/2014 7:39:20 PM)
I guess the fact that I consider 20 ships a large convoy* is a clue to my thoughts. *amphibious invasions are an exception to this.

dr.hal -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/22/2014 7:46:49 PM)
Oh, I did forget to mention one aspect of "large" convoys (catwhoog, by definition I mean 50-100 ships here, sorry) is that you are bound to get at least one collision per trip and if you don't, count yourself lucky. That means you need to keep an eye on the convoy's speed so that it stays at 3 hexes per pulse. If the collision causes damage to slow the convoy down (as it will proceed at the slowest ship's speed) then the offending ship(s) need to form their own convoy so the main body can steam on!

blueatoll -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/22/2014 8:57:49 PM)
I just finished reading Blackett's War about the birth of Operational research in WWII. Blackett's group in the UK calculated that the optimal size of a convoy through the Black Gap was 80-100 ships with a ratio of 1 escort for every 11 merchant ships. Just sayin'.

AW1Steve -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/22/2014 9:51:51 PM)
Big turning into little is my favorite. What I mean by this is you use a "feeder" port system. Small convoys feed into a big port like San Francisco, form a big convoy , which might be "shadowed" by a surface or Carrier TF going the same direction (like say Pearl Harbor). You then begin breaking off into smaller convoys going to smaller and different ports. The whole idea is to provide as much protection to as large a number of ships as efficiently as possible. And as far as being a target for the KB , the best protection for your convoy, bases or any ships for that matter is knowing where the KB is (or at least where it isn't). I use a series of picket lines consisting of subs, YMS's or SC/PC type vessels , and lastly maritme patrol aircraft (such as PBY's, PBM's , B-24's etc.). Over lapping layers upon layers. That's the only sure way to protect your convoys by having them nowhere near the KB. If you get a sighting of the KB , divert EVERYTHING , especially your big convoys. And if you are going where the enemy has the KB , or large amounts of LBA , then you need to run small convoys of EXPENDABLE ships, like AKL's or really small AK's and AP's. Never risk AK's, AP's and TK's in the face of warships or warplanes. They just are not built to fight.

spence -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/22/2014 9:52:20 PM)
This entire thread seems a paradox to me. I play Allies pretty much exclusively. Thus the following perceptions are based essentially on recon and submarine attacks and might be in error. Recon (sure do love those PB4Y-1s) routinely shows scores of Japanese freighters sitting idle in port. Admittedly I haven't got all that many PB4Y-1s, but it seems that I find scores of IJ ships sitting idle in port no matter where I look. My submarines have a difficult time finding IJ ships to attack but when they do there is only one ship or one with an escort. Sighting reports by said submarines during the turn following their relatively rare attacks only show the one ship or the one ship and its escort. A couple of questions occur to me: 1) Is this a failing of the situation caused by game mechanics? (IRL the sub commander who failed to report the position, course and speed of a sighted convoy would have been a candidate for a GCM - if he had time and opportunity to set up an attack he had time after he got away to report to his command what he had found). 2) If the subs are indeed finding single merchies then there should be single merchies spread out all over the ocean and they should be much easier to find. In WWI the solution to the U-Boat Problem was the convoy and because of the primitive state of ASW at the time its most important contribution was to simply collect all those merchies into one place and make the rest of the ocean an empty wasteland for the submarines to hunt in. On the off chance that a U-Boat found the enemy its commander faced 1:100 odds. 3) Is the Japanese Player so blessed with adequate lift/tonnage that he can afford to have his merchies collect dust in some (relatively) safe port? It is the opinion of every military analysis of the Pacific War that Imperial Japan started the war with too little merchant tonnage to support its effort, that diversion of general merchant tonnage to direct military purposes severely hurt the IJ war effort and that every single loss of a merchant hull was more than Japan could afford starting on Dec 7, 1941. I'm sure that attending to every Maru every turn would be tedious but it sure seems that simply ignoring one of the most significant strategic problems faced by IJ during the war is the wrong approach. It seems to me that the IJ Players on the forum should be addressing this question on a regular basis since the answers should have a much much more immediate impact on every operation they attempt.

dr.hal -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/22/2014 10:29:01 PM)
Good points Steve.... one thing I would like to underscore is that as an Allied player I would MUCH rather have the KB go storming around the ocean looking for convoys than destroying my naval and air forces.... So if a JFB wants to do that, I'm ALL for it...

mind_messing -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/22/2014 11:24:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spence This entire thread seems a paradox to me. I play Allies pretty much exclusively. Against AI or PBEM? quote: 1) Is this a failing of the situation caused by game mechanics? (IRL the sub commander who failed to report the position, course and speed of a sighted convoy would have been a candidate for a GCM - if he had time and opportunity to set up an attack he had time after he got away to report to his command what he had found). Subs failing to attack can have a whole load of causes, but mainly Sub commander naval and aggession levels. Of course, the submarines need to be in the same hex or adjacent to the enemy TF to get a chance of a hit. quote: 2) If the subs are indeed finding single merchies then there should be single merchies spread out all over the ocean and they should be much easier to find. In WWI the solution to the U-Boat Problem was the convoy and because of the primitive state of ASW at the time its most important contribution was to simply collect all those merchies into one place and make the rest of the ocean an empty wasteland for the submarines to hunt in. On the off chance that a U-Boat found the enemy its commander faced 1:100 odds. Err...not really. Allied search capabilities are good, but they're not good enough to range in to the Japanese convoy lines until late in the war. quote: 3) Is the Japanese Player so blessed with adequate lift/tonnage that he can afford to have his merchies collect dust in some (relatively) safe port? It is the opinion of every military analysis of the Pacific War that Imperial Japan started the war with too little merchant tonnage to support its effort, that diversion of general merchant tonnage to direct military purposes severely hurt the IJ war effort and that every single loss of a merchant hull was more than Japan could afford starting on Dec 7, 1941. I'm sure that attending to every Maru every turn would be tedious but it sure seems that simply ignoring one of the most significant strategic problems faced by IJ during the war is the wrong approach. Chances are that your average Japanese player: - Is a significantly better planner than both the IJN or the IJA and understands the concept of efficency. - Doesn't consider ASW as a dishonourable or worthless practice only suitable for second rate ships. - Doesn't have a split personality, with one half controling the IJA and the other the IJN. Just as your average Allied player: - Doesn't need to deal with the reprecussions of losing ships, bases or units of various nationalities. - Is aware of the value of submarine warfare against Japan's merchant marine. - Can co-ordinate units of a half-dozen nations with no penalties whatsoever (bar naval units, IIRC). Having played both sides, the IJ merchant marine situation is bad, but not critical. The fact that you end up seeing ships tied up in port is that most players get their resource convoys down to the last tonne of the stuff, something that never happened historically. There's also the issue of abstraction concerning resources: most of Japan's needs can be filled by China and Manchuria. At the end of the day, if you want to open up the editor and create a scenario that gives Japan a simple choice: economy or conquest, feel free to do so. You just won't find me willing to take Japan on that side. Both sides have historical issues blurred for the sake of gameplay.

spence -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/23/2014 12:27:13 AM)
quote: Having played both sides, the IJ merchant marine situation is bad, but not critical. Only problem is that it was critical. It was critical from the 1st day of the war. It was short by a million tons to meet Japan's peacetime needs: in peacetime though, merchies from other countries could fulfill those needs. A few captured merchies didn't come close to making up for the rest of the world's merchant fleets deciding they didn't want to work for Japan anymore. Every loss made a critical situation worse. BTW I play PBEM almost exclusively so now that I can look into the hinterlands (43) I am seeing the Japanese parking large parts of their merchant fleet in ports. And as every Allied Player knows the first thing you do is spend PPs to get rid of all the duds in command of most of your subs. If the Japanese Player is using convoys of multiple merchies plus escorts and such a convoy is spotted the system should report it just as the commander of the sub was required to do (that is best estimate of number of ships, course, and speed). I think it is a game mechanics/system problem that such reports are not forthcoming. And recon aircraft routinely finding scores of merchies sitting in harbor is not the same as scouting out the IJ "convoy routes". quote: quote: 2) If the subs are indeed finding single merchies then there should be single merchies spread out all over the ocean and they should be much easier to find. In WWI the solution to the U-Boat Problem was the convoy and because of the primitive state of ASW at the time its most important contribution was to simply collect all those merchies into one place and make the rest of the ocean an empty wasteland for the submarines to hunt in. On the off chance that a U-Boat found the enemy its commander faced 1:100 odds. Err...not really. Assuming you're not 90 years old and since convoy operations have not been right at the forefront of academic/military studies for 20 odd years or so perhaps you'd like to enlighten the community here about your qualifications to dismiss the study of so many of the Naval Professionals who set their pens to paper in the past.

AW1Steve -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/23/2014 1:12:03 AM)
Does the USN/USNR qualify as a "military study" group? Convoy operations a studies have been on going since ww2. Naval Control of Shipping units (NCOS units) have actively study the matter as Naval Reserve units. And other units have regularly practiced and studied the exercise. The last major "combat" convoy exercise was the re-flagging of the Kuwaiti tankers during the Iran-Iraq war. But that's not the only case, just the most notable.

Xargun -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/23/2014 3:19:32 AM)
What you might be seeing are the dregs of the Japanese navy - the little xAKLs that can only carry like 82 tons of cargo - they are not worth building, but some people build them and sit them around as decoys - they absorb shells, bombs and torpedoes just as well as useful ships. I know in my current PBeM I have stopped most of them from building, they only cost 1 point a turn but I see no use for them - even barges have a better use than the 82 ton cargo haulers.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/23/2014 12:00:21 PM)
You are probably seeing the effects of the Magic Resource Highway in the game. JFBs speak of it in hushed tones. "Stuff" flows overland from Malaysia-ish to Korea-ish without needing to go on the water. Some Japanese players report in the forum they don't use it and instead do the historical thing and put it all on ships, especially tankers. If they don't it's impossible to wage even a semblance of the USN's submarine war and the Japanese player has lots of merchants to spare for late-war troop retraction, even if they, as most report they do, turn off merchant construction pretty early.

offenseman -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/23/2014 2:17:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spence 3) Is the Japanese Player so blessed with adequate lift/tonnage that he can afford to have his merchies collect dust in some (relatively) safe port? It is the opinion of every military analysis of the Pacific War that Imperial Japan started the war with too little merchant tonnage to support its effort, that diversion of general merchant tonnage to direct military purposes severely hurt the IJ war effort and that every single loss of a merchant hull was more than Japan could afford starting on Dec 7, 1941. I'm sure that attending to every Maru every turn would be tedious but it sure seems that simply ignoring one of the most significant strategic problems faced by IJ during the war is the wrong approach. It seems to me that the IJ Players on the forum should be addressing this question on a regular basis since the answers should have a much much more immediate impact on every operation they attempt. As someone else mentioned you may be seeing the tiny capacity ships, ACMs, AMc, and uber small xAKLs sitting in port as well some recon fog of war. It also depends on what game you are playing. Something like DBB-C makes things tougher for Japan and may be a game that interests you. regarding the flow of resources and oil from Malaya, that can vary quite a bit as to its effectiveness. I have always had a difficult time getting liquid cargo to flow from Malaya, enough so that last PBEM, I had to move every little bit by TK. In my case, I prefer to be more historical anyway and move it but still if the flow goes well for your opponent, then he may have ships sitting idle for that reason as well.

obvert -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/23/2014 2:52:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 You are probably seeing the effects of the Magic Resource Highway in the game. JFBs speak of it in hushed tones. "Stuff" flows overland from Malaysia-ish to Korea-ish without needing to go on the water. Some Japanese players report in the forum they don't use it and instead do the historical thing and put it all on ships, especially tankers. If they don't it's impossible to wage even a semblance of the USN's submarine war and the Japanese player has lots of merchants to spare for late-war troop retraction, even if they, as most report they do, turn off merchant construction pretty early. Doesn't work so well, and there don't seem to be any hushed tones in the Japanese AARs that talk about it. Check my Wild Sheep Chase sometime in 42 and there is a long drawn out attempt to make this work, which ended in complete failure by the way. I don't think it's possible to move all of that stuff over land, and if it was the fuel is still subject to spoiling. Maybe it works against the AI, but not in a PBEM? So I shipped all of the oil/fuel from the DEI and a lot of resources, plus shipping a lot of supply/troops back down. A lot of players do this, but there is still a surplus of ships and that is probably due to the ones in the standard game scenarios having a bit too much cargo capacity. Babes have limited the capacity of all ships in some of their mods. In game I'm also pretty sure Japan doesn't have to haul everything they had to in the war. (I know these ships don't have to haul replacement aircraft, guns, tractors, or any of the other stuff that magically appears as replacements). Now this is also true for the Allies. Look at the glut of ships after about mid-43. Suddenly you're swimming in them. Well, there are some things the Allies hauled that aren't in game as well. At the time there was seen to be a need for all of those ships. If there is no need in the game, then we are missing some of the 'stuff' that was hauled in the war.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/23/2014 4:00:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 You are probably seeing the effects of the Magic Resource Highway in the game. JFBs speak of it in hushed tones. "Stuff" flows overland from Malaysia-ish to Korea-ish without needing to go on the water. Some Japanese players report in the forum they don't use it and instead do the historical thing and put it all on ships, especially tankers. If they don't it's impossible to wage even a semblance of the USN's submarine war and the Japanese player has lots of merchants to spare for late-war troop retraction, even if they, as most report they do, turn off merchant construction pretty early. Doesn't work so well, and there don't seem to be any hushed tones in the Japanese AARs that talk about it. Check my Wild Sheep Chase sometime in 42 and there is a long drawn out attempt to make this work, which ended in complete failure by the way. I don't think it's possible to move all of that stuff over land, and if it was the fuel is still subject to spoiling. Maybe it works against the AI, but not in a PBEM? So I shipped all of the oil/fuel from the DEI and a lot of resources, plus shipping a lot of supply/troops back down. A lot of players do this, but there is still a surplus of ships and that is probably due to the ones in the standard game scenarios having a bit too much cargo capacity. Babes have limited the capacity of all ships in some of their mods. In game I'm also pretty sure Japan doesn't have to haul everything they had to in the war. (I know these ships don't have to haul replacement aircraft, guns, tractors, or any of the other stuff that magically appears as replacements). Now this is also true for the Allies. Look at the glut of ships after about mid-43. Suddenly you're swimming in them. Well, there are some things the Allies hauled that aren't in game as well. At the time there was seen to be a need for all of those ships. If there is no need in the game, then we are missing some of the 'stuff' that was hauled in the war. I don't know what you did differently than the other folks in the past who have spoken of this working. There's no reason it shouldn't work. Individual "slugs" of fuel or resources aren't labeled with their point of origin. I doubt the game has memory to spare to ever try to do that. All the game knows is the quantities in the nodes each base can see. Then it applies the spinners and the stockpile settings and it hauls. The point about spoilage is a good one, however. The Allies don't haul a lot of RL stuff just as Japan does not. Years ago I posted here a link to an article about Port Hueneme and all the construction supplies loaded and shipped from there for use by the Seabees. It was over 20 million tons and 200,000 men.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/23/2014 4:51:05 PM)
OK, I did go read a bunch of your AAR. Began in June and read/skimmed through page 25 just about into October 1942. Other than brief mentions of the attempt in June where it was pointed out that a lone Chinese unit controlled a hexside on the path so it wasn't open, I didn't see a long discussion. There was some exchange with Squeeze about using loading takers to "goose" flows into Fusan from possibly Chinese sources, and speculation that the large fleet withdrawals at Singers was keeping flows from exiting there that month, but I didn't see other. Was it later? Aside, I had never read the China negotiation portion of either of you two's AARs. Without commenting on the strat bombing ban (!!) I did think your map of potential Allied 4E bombing from Ledo was pretty creative. Not only the assumed ranges (Ledo to Canton!) or that you left out minor industrial centers like Shanghai and Port Arthur, but that you tried to argue that 4Es would fly 20 hexes from Ledo into CAP. Ever. I can't get mine to fly into air superiority from ten hexes.

Spidery -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/23/2014 5:05:12 PM)
Does fuel suffer spoilage on moving? From the beta notes: "95. Gameplay Change: Removed the wastage of resources/oil/fuel during overland movement."

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/23/2014 5:09:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Spidery Does fuel suffer spoilage on moving? From the beta notes: "95. Gameplay Change: Removed the wastage of resources/oil/fuel during overland movement." I'm the wrong guy to ask what this note means. Alllllfffffrrreeeeddddd!!!!

Lokasenna -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/23/2014 5:13:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Spidery Does fuel suffer spoilage on moving? From the beta notes: "95. Gameplay Change: Removed the wastage of resources/oil/fuel during overland movement." Whoa! Whoa! Alright then. Magic Coast Road...you will be my b*tch. From my AI game, I'm not sure that it's capable of hauling everything. I know that Fuel and Oil have been flowing from Singapore, but there are still several hundred thousand there and it doesn't seem to be going down anymore. Resources are minimal, so those are all flowing OK.

Spidery -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/23/2014 5:15:02 PM)
quote: (I know these ships don't have to haul replacement aircraft, guns, tractors, or any of the other stuff that magically appears as replacements) They sort of do in that supply is needed to create replacements. However, in some scenarios and some places, the local supply generation exceeds demand so in that case there is no need to ship it.

jeffk3510 -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/23/2014 7:08:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 You are probably seeing the effects of the Magic Resource Highway in the game. JFBs speak of it in hushed tones. "Stuff" flows overland from Malaysia-ish to Korea-ish without needing to go on the water. Some Japanese players report in the forum they don't use it and instead do the historical thing and put it all on ships, especially tankers. If they don't it's impossible to wage even a semblance of the USN's submarine war and the Japanese player has lots of merchants to spare for late-war troop retraction, even if they, as most report they do, turn off merchant construction pretty early. Doesn't work so well, and there don't seem to be any hushed tones in the Japanese AARs that talk about it. Check my Wild Sheep Chase sometime in 42 and there is a long drawn out attempt to make this work, which ended in complete failure by the way. I don't think it's possible to move all of that stuff over land, and if it was the fuel is still subject to spoiling. Maybe it works against the AI, but not in a PBEM? So I shipped all of the oil/fuel from the DEI and a lot of resources, plus shipping a lot of supply/troops back down. A lot of players do this, but there is still a surplus of ships and that is probably due to the ones in the standard game scenarios having a bit too much cargo capacity. Babes have limited the capacity of all ships in some of their mods. In game I'm also pretty sure Japan doesn't have to haul everything they had to in the war. (I know these ships don't have to haul replacement aircraft, guns, tractors, or any of the other stuff that magically appears as replacements). Now this is also true for the Allies. Look at the glut of ships after about mid-43. Suddenly you're swimming in them. Well, there are some things the Allies hauled that aren't in game as well. At the time there was seen to be a need for all of those ships. If there is no need in the game, then we are missing some of the 'stuff' that was hauled in the war. Can't argue with that.

Cribtop -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/23/2014 8:41:57 PM)
It is also unclear the extent to which the civilian economy is modeled for either side. If most of your hulls are needed just to feed the people, there would not be a lot left to move war material. Obviously at some point you prioritize the war effort, but go too far down this road and everyone is starving, which assisted in German defeat in both wars and Japanese defeat in the PTO.

obvert -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/23/2014 9:10:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 OK, I did go read a bunch of your AAR. Began in June and read/skimmed through page 25 just about into October 1942. Other than brief mentions of the attempt in June where it was pointed out that a lone Chinese unit controlled a hexside on the path so it wasn't open, I didn't see a long discussion. There was some exchange with Squeeze about using loading takers to "goose" flows into Fusan from possibly Chinese sources, and speculation that the large fleet withdrawals at Singers was keeping flows from exiting there that month, but I didn't see other. Was it later? Aside, I had never read the China negotiation portion of either of you two's AARs. Without commenting on the strat bombing ban (!!) I did think your map of potential Allied 4E bombing from Ledo was pretty creative. Not only the assumed ranges (Ledo to Canton!) or that you left out minor industrial centers like Shanghai and Port Arthur, but that you tried to argue that 4Es would fly 20 hexes from Ledo into CAP. Ever. I can't get mine to fly into air superiority from ten hexes. It's kind of a sporadic discussion, but certainly not 'hush hush.' [;)] Here is one of the major posts with replies on and off down that page: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3062465 I aso admit I have learned a lot during this game, my first real PBEM, and so my thinking about a lot of things has changed.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/23/2014 9:44:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 OK, I did go read a bunch of your AAR. Began in June and read/skimmed through page 25 just about into October 1942. Other than brief mentions of the attempt in June where it was pointed out that a lone Chinese unit controlled a hexside on the path so it wasn't open, I didn't see a long discussion. There was some exchange with Squeeze about using loading takers to "goose" flows into Fusan from possibly Chinese sources, and speculation that the large fleet withdrawals at Singers was keeping flows from exiting there that month, but I didn't see other. Was it later? Aside, I had never read the China negotiation portion of either of you two's AARs. Without commenting on the strat bombing ban (!!) I did think your map of potential Allied 4E bombing from Ledo was pretty creative. Not only the assumed ranges (Ledo to Canton!) or that you left out minor industrial centers like Shanghai and Port Arthur, but that you tried to argue that 4Es would fly 20 hexes from Ledo into CAP. Ever. I can't get mine to fly into air superiority from ten hexes. It's kind of a sporadic discussion, but certainly not 'hush hush.' [;)] Here is one of the major posts with replies on and off down that page: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3062465 I aso admit I have learned a lot during this game, my first real PBEM, and so my thinking about a lot of things has changed. Dan Nichols in Post 408 after the June 1 turn post: "Are you completely sure that you "own" all of the hexes on the rail line/major road network? In your May 25 screen shot there is a Chinese unit sitting on the rail line to the Southwest of Changsha. " You said next post: "Good question Dan. That may have affected things up to now I realize thinking about the sequence of things. That little guy has been given a great big shove off the rail by and armored car unit. It's the Lusu War Area that starts in the swamp near Nanking. Not sure how it's lasted this long. I let it wander hoping it would just evaporate, and then it just kept getting in the way. So now it is off the track and won't be causing any more problems. All of the rail is now clear." I had to find it so could be sure I wasn't dreaming. I read the thread pretty early in the AM. I took it to mean any data from before the last week of May was questionable about the Highway, and then there wasn't another discussion about it through October when I stopped reading. Not a big deal, but others have reported it does work. I don't know what the betas have done. Of course, all the POL from Soerbaja, Borneo, the small sources around NG, etc. has to go by sea. But other players have reported dumping the Medan lot onto Malaysia to flow to Singers and then east, as well as the Burma stuff. I've seen discussion that it takes awhile to build, but it works pretty well by 1943. I don't really care as I understand how complex the flow models already must be, plus knowing the Highway is there makes it a target for coastal severing later on. I was mostly responding to Spence's point about ships in port. As a submarine guy I wish it were possible to see more of how the anti-commerce sub war played out.

mind_messing -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/23/2014 10:12:29 PM)
quote: Only problem is that it was critical. It was critical from the 1st day of the war. It was short by a million tons to meet Japan's peacetime needs: in peacetime though, merchies from other countries could fulfill those needs. A few captured merchies didn't come close to making up for the rest of the world's merchant fleets deciding they didn't want to work for Japan anymore. Every loss made a critical situation worse. The key phrase is peacetime needs. People don't need cars and other consumer goods when there's a war on. quote: If the Japanese Player is using convoys of multiple merchies plus escorts and such a convoy is spotted the system should report it just as the commander of the sub was required to do (that is best estimate of number of ships, course, and speed). I think it is a game mechanics/system problem that such reports are not forthcoming. And recon aircraft routinely finding scores of merchies sitting in harbor is not the same as scouting out the IJ "convoy routes". The game already does this. I used it last turn in a PBEM. A sub detected a transport task force, and a SCTF intercepted it the next turn. It's not a problem with the game. quote: Assuming you're not 90 years old and since convoy operations have not been right at the forefront of academic/military studies for 20 odd years or so perhaps you'd like to enlighten the community here about your qualifications to dismiss the study of so many of the Naval Professionals who set their pens to paper in the past. It was more your invalid comparison with WW1 than my flagrant disregard for obviously correct academic work. quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: obvert quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 You are probably seeing the effects of the Magic Resource Highway in the game. JFBs speak of it in hushed tones. "Stuff" flows overland from Malaysia-ish to Korea-ish without needing to go on the water. Some Japanese players report in the forum they don't use it and instead do the historical thing and put it all on ships, especially tankers. If they don't it's impossible to wage even a semblance of the USN's submarine war and the Japanese player has lots of merchants to spare for late-war troop retraction, even if they, as most report they do, turn off merchant construction pretty early. Doesn't work so well, and there don't seem to be any hushed tones in the Japanese AARs that talk about it. Check my Wild Sheep Chase sometime in 42 and there is a long drawn out attempt to make this work, which ended in complete failure by the way. I don't think it's possible to move all of that stuff over land, and if it was the fuel is still subject to spoiling. Maybe it works against the AI, but not in a PBEM? So I shipped all of the oil/fuel from the DEI and a lot of resources, plus shipping a lot of supply/troops back down. A lot of players do this, but there is still a surplus of ships and that is probably due to the ones in the standard game scenarios having a bit too much cargo capacity. Babes have limited the capacity of all ships in some of their mods. In game I'm also pretty sure Japan doesn't have to haul everything they had to in the war. (I know these ships don't have to haul replacement aircraft, guns, tractors, or any of the other stuff that magically appears as replacements). Now this is also true for the Allies. Look at the glut of ships after about mid-43. Suddenly you're swimming in them. Well, there are some things the Allies hauled that aren't in game as well. At the time there was seen to be a need for all of those ships. If there is no need in the game, then we are missing some of the 'stuff' that was hauled in the war. I don't know what you did differently than the other folks in the past who have spoken of this working. There's no reason it shouldn't work. Individual "slugs" of fuel or resources aren't labeled with their point of origin. I doubt the game has memory to spare to ever try to do that. All the game knows is the quantities in the nodes each base can see. Then it applies the spinners and the stockpile settings and it hauls. The point about spoilage is a good one, however. The Allies don't haul a lot of RL stuff just as Japan does not. Years ago I posted here a link to an article about Port Hueneme and all the construction supplies loaded and shipped from there for use by the Seabees. It was over 20 million tons and 200,000 men. Exactly. There's no requirement (yes, it's very handy) to ship fuel to places like New Zealand and Austrailia, allowing the heavy industry to grind to a halt.

spence -> RE: convoy, big or small? (1/23/2014 10:25:02 PM)
quote: The key phrase is peacetime needs. People don't need cars and other consumer goods when there's a war on. Absolutely correct...except that practically none of the Japanese people had cars or significant quantities of consumer goods before the war. They did have to eat though. Do you know any really good recipes for grass? The Times of Tokyo does. Perhaps you can get them to dig out some back issues and translate them into English (or whatever is convenient).

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.578003